State ex rel. Janosek v. Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Janosek v. Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency, 123 Ohio St.3d 126, 2009-Ohio-4692.] THE STATE EX REL. JANOSEK ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. CUYAHOGA SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, APPELLEE. [Cite as State ex rel. Janosek v. Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency, 123 Ohio St.3d 126, 2009-Ohio-4692.] Prohibition Agency action that is not judicial or quasi-judicial in nature is not subject to prohibition Adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law Writ denied. (No. 2009-0705 Submitted September 2, 2009 Decided September 16, 2009.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 92387, 2009-Ohio-1098. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of prohibition to prevent appellee, Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency, from ordering the payment of spousal support and the withholding of money allegedly not owed by appellants, James Janosek and Welded Ring Products Company. Because no statute or other pertinent law required the agency to conduct a hearing resembling a judicial trial when it issued its notice to withhold income for spousal support, the agency did not exercise the judicial or quasi-judicial authority required for appellants to be entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in prohibition. See State ex rel. Wright v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 120 Ohio St.3d 92, 2008-Ohio-5553, 896 N.E.2d 706, ¶ 8. The authorities cited by appellants refer only to discretionary authority to hold hearings. See, e.g., R.C. 5101.37. Insofar as appellants claim that the agency is acting contrary to a trial court order, they have an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by way SUPREME COURT OF OHIO of a motion for contempt in the trial court case. See State ex rel. Weaver v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 116 Ohio St.3d 340, 2007-Ohio-6435, 879 N.E.2d 191, ¶ 6. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O CONNOR, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. __________________ Zukerman, Daiker & Lear Co., L.P.A., Larry W. Zukerman, and S. Michael Lear, for appellants. William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Frederick W. Whatley, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. __________________ 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
